Edexcel and BTEC Qualifications

Edexcel and BTEC qualifications are awarded by Pearson, the UKs largest awarding body.
We provide a wide range of qualifications including academic, vocational, occupational and
specific programmes for employers. For further information visit our qualifications websites
at www.edexcel.com or www.btec.co.uk. Alternatively, you can get in touch with us using
the details on our contact us page at www.edexcel.com/contactus.

Pearson: helping people progress, everywhere

Pearson aspires to be the worlds leading learning company. Our aim is to help everyone
progress in their lives through education. We believe in every kind of learning, for all kinds
of people, wherever they are in the world. Weve been involved in education for over 150
years, and by working across 70 countries, in 100 languages, we have built an international
reputation for our commitment to high standards and raising achievement through
innovation in education. Find out more about how we can help you and your students at:
www.pearson.com/uk

Summer 2015
Publications Code UG040750
All the material in this publication is copyright

Pearson Education Ltd 2015

GCSE Applied Business 5AB01 Chief Examiners Final Report

2015

June

Controlled Assessment
It continues to be important to recognise the differences between the earlier
coursework approaches to the original version of this specification and the
requirements of controlled assessment here.
Many candidates again produced responses which it was difficult to believe had
been completed within the time allowed. Whilst it is not intended that exam
sessions should be held, the work submitted should reflect the candidates
responses to the set activities within the time limits allowed whilst adhering to
the nature of a medium level of control. This was better evidenced where clear
references were made to sources of information used even where a bibliography
as such was not required. This would remove the practice of some centres whose
candidates submitted all their research files. This is not required; the Awarding
Body reserves the right to request such files in cases where there are some
doubts concerning validity or authenticity but there is no need to send all
research materials with the submitted work.
The nature of controlled assessment makes annotation of the work an essential
feature;
Annotation of Work
The importance of clear annotation cannot be stressed enough; it
provides guidance both for internal and external verification and
moderation of assessment decisions.
The minimum requirement as identified in the Code of Practice is that there must
be an indication of where marks have been awarded against the assessment
criteria ie marks for research, presentation, analysis and decision making,
evaluation and methodology. These could be indicated by reference to criterion
(R, P, A, E, M and descriptor/level achieved 1, 2, or 3. See the
specification for further details). Annotation by Assessment Objective (AO) is
rather more difficult as these underpin the whole specification.
Assessors need to clearly indicate where, and to what extent, these have been
by reference to the mark descriptors contained in the Unit specification.
Sometimes, in this series, assessors indicated that more could have been done
then proceeded to award the highest mark possible!
In cases where there is little (or any) annotation indicating how marks had been
awarded it is often very difficult for moderators to agree the marks as given and
this lack of annotation is unhelpful to any form of moderation (internal or
external). In future, work without any clear annotation may be returned to
Centres for assessors to complete.

Administration:
In most cases these issues were again properly addressed but there were still
cases where the sample did not include highest and lowest or where signatures
were missing from authentication statements and had to be requested separately.
The majority of the work was received on time.
The Controlled Assessment Activities:
This year work moderated again ranged from the applied use of material drawn
from real businesses to the more remote external approach with information
taken from text book or case study sources. Some assessors again indicated
clearly how and where assessment criteria had been met whilst many others still
provided little or no evidence in support of their decisions (see under Annotation
of Work above).
In some cases there was still evidence that downloaded information (images,
pictures, maps, graphs and in some cases whole passages of text) had been
sanctioned and/or material plagiarised. Where information has been downloaded,
this needs to be clarified as having been done during research time rather than
during controlled conditions as this is not permitted. . It must be emphasised in
the strongest possible terms that the work submitted by candidates must be
their own work in its entirety and if material is copied across it must be
referenced and used as part of the candidates answer and not as a substitute for
the candidates own work. . In practice, where evidence of this or of plagiarism is
detected by moderators, the work will be referred to the Malpractice section of
the Awarding Body. The rules on plagiarism and on the conduct of controlled
assessment must be made clear to candidates and centres must also ensure they
are fully aware of the rules and apply them diligently.
Again it was also evident that, in some instances, excessive prescription had
been given to candidates. This is questionable in its legitimacy. This was
particularly so where all candidates had received very similar information and
tackled the activities in a prescribed manner making differentiation between
candidates difficult not to mention bringing into question the whole purpose for
which controlled assessment was introduced.
Activity 1
Most candidates tackled the set tasks but there were instances where candidates
had only looked at a single business and thus comparisons were impossible. In
other cases, multiple examples had been used and in a couple of instances, tasks
had again been re-written emphasising other aspects of business that did not
match either the specification or the tasks. In these cases it was difficult to agree
with the marks given.
Some candidates did not give reasons for their choices of organisations
investigated. Even where such choices were made by the assessor there needs to
be some rationale here. The choice of business is crucial in order for candidates
to find out about aims, objectives and so on. A poor choice here often caused
recurring problems throughout the work. The skill of justification was often
weak, even amongst stronger work.

Assessors still need to consider carefully the suitability of all chosen businesses
particularly the larger (frequently supermarket) chains where candidates often
had difficulty in focussing on particular aspects of their operations; particularly
where there was little focus on a particular branch or outlet. It is advisable that
candidates choose their own businesses to investigate rather than the business
being chosen by the centre. There are many appropriate and accessible
businesses available for students to choose one of the businesses does not
have to be Tesco or another supermarket there are plenty of other (more)
interesting businesses available!
Much better work was again found where candidates had chosen smaller, local
businesses and then were able to demonstrate much better coverage of the
criteria where the business or organisation was familiar to them. Relying on
websites or ready-made case studies is no substitute for a proper investigation of
an actual business and also encourages candidates to copy and paste large
sections of the corporate website.
With regard to ethical trade some continued to treat this as ethnical whilst
others continue to think of Fair trade as a business brand. In order for
candidates to gain some critical understanding it is important that they do not
just assume that Fair trade is good without considering any counterbalancing
factors However, some did again look at this issue seriously and examined the
business green credentials.
Whilst the majority of candidates included a limited bibliography, few made it
very detailed and thus marks were lost.
Activity 2
It is important that coverage of functional areas and communications should be
applied to the business chosen rather than just as a generic topic for the
business. An investigation here should be of the actual forms of communication
used by the particular business. This provides yet another reason why the choice
of an appropriate business is so important.
Some candidates again covered both businesses for all aspects of the activity
and others misinterpreted the requirement completely. Although most were able
to give an opinion, few candidates really gave reasons why their chosen method
of communication was the most important of the many used.
Activity 3
The coverage seen was again better than in 2014. Generic lists of stakeholders
were still in evidence but these need to be interpreted and applied to the
particular business investigated. Without this, any work on the ranking of
stakeholders or conflict between stakeholders becomes academic. Dependent on
the choice of business not all the generic stakeholders given in textbooks will
always be relevant.

It is also important to ensure that candidates give examples of how the chosen
business attracts and retains new customers (marketing and/or customer service
could be reviewed here) and select two relevant pieces of legislation affecting the
rights and responsibilities of employees. Once again, analysis and some
evaluation were important in examining how far the law impacts on the chosen
business.
Reflection on Skills
As well as completing the tasks contained within the activities above, candidates
are required to consider these issues as detailed in the specification. One
reasonably detailed reflection may be used to cover all three tasks so long as it
addresses:

time management, personal organisation and action planning

use of data and problem solving
roles played in any group work undertaken
suitability of chosen methods of presentation

See Controlled Assessment tasks for full details

Assessment Criteria:
Research:
It remains important that assessor comments support the marks given. This is
particularly so where no bibliography is explicitly required. Assessors will have
witnessed the candidates research activities and a clear statement of
performance will justify any mark given. Again this year this had often to be
inferred from the work itself and, in other cases, it was difficult to see how a
particular mark had been chosen.
Present information:
As with last year most of the work was reasonably well presented but there
were instances of muddled presentation, activities out of sequence, no headings,
paragraphs and so on that detracted from the clarity of the work. However, in
some cases, simple bulleted lists were presented for Activity 1 making it merely
a list of statements containing little or no analysis, application or evaluation. Just
as it is for the research criterion, it is important for the assessor to be able to
justify the marks given here.
Decision making:
There was again evidence of some analysis throughout most of the work seen.
Simply making comparisons, reaching simple conclusions based on findings and
making judgements can constitute analysis. Also, QWC is embedded here and in
the subsequent criterion so marks can be given for clarity, spelling, expression,
use of appropriate business terminology and so on.
.

Review/evaluation of activity:
The specification requires candidates to evaluate each task and/or their personal
and any group involvement in each activity. In practice, one reflection could
cover all three activities and be kept to a minimum to avoid repetition.
Better candidates should be further encouraged to evaluate their business
findings so that evaluation is of their understanding from the investigations of
the businesses rather than too focussed on the personal aspects. Evaluation of
the task involves applying higher order skills to the task itself (i.e. the questions
posed in the task) not simply the process involved. There is little business
understanding being demonstrated by students trotting out a standard list of
what they did, how they did it and what they would have done differently if they
had to do the task again. It must be remembered that the student is being
assessed primarily on the basis of their business understanding.
Methodology:
Again, it would have been helpful to see any planning sheets or logs used and
to have a tutor comment to support the methodology mark given. As with
research, an assessor statement as to how the candidate set about the tasks
would help to justify any mark given.
Some candidates had again been well guided whilst the work of others lacked
much evidence of planning and marks were difficult to agree.

Grade Boundaries
Grade boundaries for this, and all other papers, can be found on the website on this
link:
http://www.edexcel.com/iwantto/Pages/grade-boundaries.aspx

Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828

with its registered office at Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE